No. 3–09–0936

______________________________________________________________________________ File d Jul y 6, 2010 IN THE A PPELL ATE C OURT

OF IL LINO IS THIRD DI STRICT A.D., 2010 SANDIE WEIDNE R, ) Ap peal f rom th e Ci rcui t Court ) f or th e 9 th Judi ci al Ci rc ui t, Pl ai n ti f f -A pp el l an t, ) Kno x C o un t y, I llino is

) ) ) v. ) ) No. 06–L–51 JEREMY S. KARLIN and STOE RZBACH ) MOR RISON , P.C.; STOERZ

BACH, ) MORRISON, ROBERTSON, WILCOX , ) ALCO RN, P.C.; BARA SH STOERZBACH ) AND HENSEN, P.C. ) Honorable ) Step hen C. Mathers, Defendan ts-Appellees. ) Judge, Presi din g.

______________________________________________________________________________ JU STI CECA

RT ER de l i v ered th e op i n i on of th e c our t:

______________________________________________________________________________ T he pla int iff, Sa nd ie We idn er , br o ug ht su it ag ain st he rfo rmer at t o rne y, d efe nd an t Je r emy Karlin, a nd his law firm emplo yer ( co llectively the defend ant s), alleging lega l malpract ice and
comm on la w fraud. The def

endan ts moved to dism

is s the f raud counts, and the trial

court granted the motion. The plain

tiff appeals, clai

mi ng the cour t err ed by

dism issi ng the fraud counts ag ainst t he de fen da nt s. We affir m. FA CTS Th e p laint iff filed he r t hird ame nde d c o mplain t o n Ju ly 17 , 2 00 9. In co unt I, t he p laint iff alle ged negl

ige nt lega l m al practice agai

nst def endan t Karli n. In that count, t he pl

ai ntif f al le ged2

that Karli n was the p lai

ntiff ’s att or ney b etw een 1998 and 2006 related to a wo rker ’s
com pensati on cl ai m and tha t Karl i n a greed to represe

nt the plai ntif f i n a clai m f or another i

nj ury tha t occurred

on A pri l 28, 200 0. Th

e p l ai nti f f also a l l eg ed tha t Ka rl i n f ai l ed to f i l e a n a ppl i ca ti on for adjus t ment o f claim f

or t hat injury within t he t hre e- year s t at ut e o f li mitat ions a nd filed t he applic ation on Septemb er 27, 2005, which was sub sequentl

y di sm is sed. The plai

ntif f f urther al l eg ed th at K arl i n “ con ce al ed mate rial f ac ts a n d th e ram i f i ca ti on s th at h e w as un der a du ty to disclo se. ” T he plaint iff

alleged t hat she w as d amage d by Karlin’s failure t o t imely fil e t he applic ation be cause he

r clai m woul d have been

successf ul. Count II all

eged l egal ma lpractice ag ains t t he d efe nda nt law firm u nde r t he p rinc iples o f respondeat su pe rioran d a ge nc y. Coun t III all eged

f raud a gai nst Karl i n, a nd c ount IV a

l l eged f raud a gai nst the l aw f i rm und er t he p rinc iples o f respondeat su pe riorand agen

cy . In these counts, the pla in tif f al le ged that after Karl in fai le d to fi le her appl ic ation wi thin the statut e of l

im itations , Karlin

knowin gly ma de f alse sta tem en ts i n th at he f i l ed an appl i ca ti on f or ad j us tmen t of cl ai m af ter th e s tatute of limit at io ns h ad ex pir ed ; ne go t iat ed a s et t leme nt o f t he pla int iff’s wo rke r ’s co mpe nsa t io n c laims t ha t inc lud ed t he Ap r il 28 , 20 00 , ac cid en t ; fa iled t o ad vise t he pla int iff t ha t he rcla im fo rt he Ap r il 20 00 inju ry wa s t ime- ba rr ed be ca us e h e d id n o t file a t imely a pp lica t io n fo rad jus t men t o f cla im and the cl ai m h ad been dis mi ssed; f ai le d to advi se the plai

ntif f of her rights to appeal that di sm i ss al ; an d adv i se d th e p l ai n ti f f to ac ce pt th e s ettl em en t of f er b ec au se h er cl ai m l acke d m eri t, not beca use t he claim for t he Apr il 2000 injury was t ime-bar re d. The plaint iff also alleged t hat she
re lied upo n Karlin’s misst at ement s in tha t she c ons ider ed t aking t he se t t lement a nd disc uss ed t he
settl em en t of f er w i th h er f am i l y an d f ri en ds , wh o ad vi se d her to s eek a

se con d leg al opi ni on regardin g her worker’s compen

sation cl ai ms . The pl ai

ntif f f urther all eged that she suf

fered great3

hum il ia tion and a ngui sh as a resul t o f tel li ng he r fam il y a nd f rien ds that she di

d not have a
me ritorious worker’s compensation cl ai m. The pla in tif f s ought puniti

ve dam ages f or t he al le ged fraud. On

Septem be r 16 , 20 09, the

de f en da nts f i l ed a m oti on to d i sm i ss cou nts II, I II a nd IV of t he t hird a mended co mplaint, pur sua nt t o s ect ion 2 –61 5 o f the Co de o f Civil Pr oc edu re (t he Code) (735 ILCS 5/2–615 (West 2008)). Regarding counts III and IV, the def endan ts argued that t hose counts should be di sm is sed beca use the plai

ntif f h ad fai le d to ple ad, with the requi red specifi ci ty an d particularity, facts consti tut in g fraud un

der the comm

on la w. The court held a heari ng on the m

ot ion to dismi

ss on October 20, 2009. During the pl ai ntif f’ s argum ent, she stated t hat she c ou ld no t plead any add itio nal fact s in sup po rt of c ou nt s II I a nd I V. The co ur t denied t he
mo t io n t o dis miss c o unt II and gr ant ed t he mo t io n t o dis miss c o unt s I II and IV . T he p laint iff
re iter at ed t hat she c ou ld no t amend he r p leading a s t o c ou nt s II I a nd I V. The co ur t and t he pa rties ’ a ttorn ey s a l so d i sc us se d w h eth er th e def en da n ts a l so h ad to m ov e to d i sm i ss th e c oun ts under section 2-619 of the Code, and the cour t gr anted t he defen dants’ or al m

ot ion to dismi

ss unde r se ct ion 2 –61 9. The co ur t furt her fou nd t hat t her e wa s no just re aso n t o d elay enfor cement or appea l of the order, pursuan

t to Suprem

e Court Ru

l e 304 (a). 210

Il l . 2d R. 3 04(a). AN AL YSIS In i ti al l y , w e add re ss th e a pp aren t con f us i on ov er wh eth er th e def en da n t’s moti on to di sm i ss wa s prop erl

y b rough t un der s ec ti on

2– 61 5 or se cti on 2– 61 9 of th e C ode . “

A moti on to dis mi ss unde r section 2-615(a) of the Code (735 ILCS 5/2-615(a) (West 2006)) tests t he l egal suf fi ci ency of the compl

ai nt, whereas a m

ot ion to dismi

ss unde r section 2-619(a) of the Code (735 IL CS 5/ 2- 61 9( a) (West 20 06 )) a

dm i ts th e l eg al suf f i ci en cy of th e c om pl ai n t, b ut a ss er ts4

aff irm ative ma tt er out si de the compl

ai nt that defeats the cause of action.” Ke an

v. W al -Mart Sto res, Inc. , 235 I ll . 2d 351, 361, 919 N.E. 2d 926, 9 31-32 ( 2009). In this case, the defendan ts’
wr itt en mot ion t o d ismi ss co unt s II I a nd I V o f the t hird a mended co mplaint allege d t hat t he pla in tif f h ad fai le d to alle ge fac

ts suff ic ie nt to constitute a clai

m f or fraud and spec if

ic ally stated tha t the moti on wasbr

ough t pur suan t to se cti on 2 –61 5 of the Code. N ei

the r th e w ri tten moti on no ran y o r al mo t io n a ss er t ed t ha t an y affir mat ive mat t er de fea t ed t he cla im. T hu s, we will determi ne wh ether the trial

court properly

dis mi ssed counts III and IV under sec tion 2–615. Whe n r ev iew ing a d ec isio n t o gr an t a s ec t io n 2 –6 15 mo t io n t o dis miss , “t he qu es t io n is ‘whet her t he allega t ions o f the co mplaint, when c ons t ru ed in t he light most favo ra ble to t he pla in tif f, are suf fi ci ent to est abl

is h a cause of action upon wh

ic h rel ie f m ay be granted.’ ” Gr een v. Rogers , 234 Ill . 2d 478, 491, 917 N.E .2d 450, 458–59 (2009), quot in g Vit r o v. Mihe lcic , 20 9 I ll. 2d 7 6, 8 1, 8 06 N .E.2 d 63 2 (2 004 ). “ A ca us e of ac ti on s hou l d n ot be di sm i ss ed un de r s ec ti on 2- 61 5 u nles s it is cle ar ly app ar ent t hat no se t o f fac t s c an b e p ro ved t hat wo uld ent it le t he p laint iff to recovery.” Green , 234 I ll . 2d at 491, 917 N.E. 2d at 4 59. Our review is de novo . Green , 234 Il l . 2d at 49 1, 917 N .E.2d at 45 9. The elem ents of a cl

ai m f or fraudule

nt mi srepresentation, also referred to as comm on la w f ra ud , a re : (1 ) a f alse sta tem en t or om i ss i on of mate rial f ac t; (2 ) k n owl ed ge or b el i ef of th e f alsi ty b y th e p ar ty mak i n g i t; (3 ) i n ten ti on to i n du ce th e oth er pa rty to act; (4 ) a cti

on b y th e oth er pa rty in reli ance on the truth of the statemen ts; and (5) dam

age to t he other party resul ting f rom such rel i ance. Board of Education of Ci ty of Ch ic ago v. A, C & S, Inc. , 131 Ill . 2d 428, 452, 546 N.E .2d 580 , 59 1 (1 989 ); se e al so Lidecker v. Ken dall C ollege , 194 Ill . App. 3d 309, 314, 550 N.E .2d 112 1, 1 124

(19 90) . In

addi ti on to th es e e l em en ts, i n or de r to prove

f rau d by the om i ss i on5

of a m aterial fact, “i t is n ecessary to show the exi

stence of a s

peci al or fi duci ary rel

ationsh ip, whi ch woul d rais e a duty to speak.” Lidecker , 1 94 I ll. App. 3d a t 317 , 5 50 N .E .2 d at 112 6. “A
succ es sf ul com mon l aw f rau d c om pl ai nt m us t al l eg e, wi th s pe cif i ci ty an d pa rticul ari ty , f ac ts f rom whi ch f raud is the neces sary

or pro bab le

in feren ce, in cl udin g what m is representations were m

ade, when they were ma de, who made

the mi srepresentations

and to whom they

were ma de.” Conni

ck
v. Suz uki Motor C o. , 174 Il

l . 2d 482 , 496-4 97, 675 N.E.2d 5 84, 591 (1996 ). T he pla int iff, in t his c as e, faile d t o alle ge su fficie nt sp ec ific fa ct s t o es t ab lish a fr au d c laim aga inst t he de fendant s. T he plaint iff alleges Karlin per for med a s t ring o f relat ed a ct s t hat she cla ims c o nst it ut ed a fa lse st at eme nt o f mat er ial fa ct . T he es se nc e o f he ralle ga t io ns is t ha t Ka r lin fai le d to in form the pla in tif f that the worker’s compen sation cl ai m f or t he A pril 2000 in jury was fi le d out si de of the statute o f l im itations . Instead, Karlin

advi sed the plai

ntif f to settle all of

her cl ai m s b ec au se

th ose cl ai m s l acke d m eri t. Th us , the p l ai

n ti f f al l eg ed th at K arl i n atte m pte d to in duce her to sett le

her worker’s compen

sation cl ai ms to conceal

hi s act of fi

li ng the A pril 2000 cl ai m a fter the statut e of l

im itations had ex pired. A ssum

in g solel y f or t he purposes of our f ol l owi ng an al y sis th at thes e al l eg ati

ons were s uf f i ci en t to con sti tute th e f i rs t threeel

em en ts of fraud, i t is apparen

t t hat the pl ai

ntif f’ s am ended com

pla in t faile d to alle ge fac

ts showin g reli ance and damages. T he pla int iff ha s a lleg ed no fac t s t ha t ind ica t e t ha t she r elie d u po n Ka r lin’s alle ge dly frau dulent omissio n. T he plaint iff did no t set t le her w or ker ’s co mpensa t ion claims. R at her , t he
com plai nt i ndi cates that sh e soug ht out a se cond

l egal opi ni on on th e m eri ts of h er cl ai m s. Fur t her , t he plaint iff

has no t alleged any fact s indicat ing t hat she w as d amage d by re lyi ng upo n Karlin’s failure t o info rm her t hat her Apr il 2000 claim was t ime-bar re d. She c laims she6

su ffer ed hu miliat io n a nd an gu ish a s a r es ult o f Ka r lin’s co nd uc t . Ho we ve r , da mag es fo rso lely
em otional ha rm are n ot recoverab l e i

n a n acti on f or fra ud. Cangem

i v . Advocate Sout h Suburb an Hospital , 364 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 44 6, 469- 70, 845 N.E.2d 7 92, 813 (2006 ). The plai ntif f ci tes Cripe v. Lei ter , 291 Il l . Ap p. 3d 15 5, 158, 6 83 N.E.2 d 516, 5 19 (19 97), for t he pr op os itio n t hat co mmon law fra ud a nd lega l malpract ice ar e dist inct c aus es o f act ion, and thus Ka rli n’ s con duct, al though occurri ng w i thi n a l awy er-cl i en t rel ati onsh

i p, con sti tuted f raud. In Cripe , plai

ntif f al le ged that the defen

dant-att orney an

d hi s l aw fi

rm com mi tt ed fraud wh

en they kno wingly submitt ed false bill ing st at ement s t o t he plaint iff re gar ding t he number of ho ur s sp ent on trust m

atters an d a guardi an sh i p cas e. Cripe , 29 1 I ll. A pp . 3d at 15 7, 68 3 N
. E
. 2d at 51 8. T his court hel d that where a pl ai

ntif f’ s compl ai nt for comm

on la w fraud agai

nst a def endan t-at to rney sta tesa c au se

of ac ti on, the

pl ai nti f f ’s req ue st f or pu ni ti ve da mag esi s n

ot pre cl ude d by se cti on 2–111 5 of

the C ode (735 ILCS 5/2–1 115 (W est 199 4)). Cripe , 291 Ill . App. 3d at 159, 683 N.E.2d at 520. The Cripe co ur t was not called u po n t o c ons ider and d id no t co nsider whet her t he plai ntif f ’scom pl ai nt stated a ca use of a cti on f or fra ud. Th us, Cripe i s n ot appl i cab l e here, w

here wewere pres en

ted wi th th e i ss uewhether th

e p l ai nti f f ’s com pl ai nt s tate d a ca us e of ac ti on f or fraud. Be l ow, th e tr

i al cou rt i n di ca ted th at i t wa s n ot co n cerned

wi th th e p ar ti es ’ a rgum en ts
re ga rdi n g th e a v ai l ab i l i ty of pu n i ti v e dam ag es b ec au se th e p l ai n ti f f h ad n ot pl ed suf f i ci en t f ac ts to establi sh a f

raud claim

agains t t he defen

dants. We agree. We need not consider the part ies’ argumen ts regarding pun

iti ve dam ages and the

applic abi li ty of se ction 2–1115 of the C ode (735 ILC S 5 /2 –11 15 ( West 200 8) ) be cau se t he plaint iff has no t pled a claim of frau d ag ainst t he defendan ts.7 CONCLUSION We concl ude that the plai

ntif f di d not allege suf

fi ci ent facts to establ

is h a cl ai m of fraud agai nst the de f

endan ts. The tria l court properl

y di sm i sse d coun

ts III an d IV of the p l ai ntif f ’sthi rd
am ended com

pla in t. Accordingl

y, the j udgme

nt of the Kn

ox County ci

rcuit court is af

fi rmed. Af fi rmed. HOLDRID GE, P. J. a

nd W RIGH T, J. con

curri ng.